Mikeska v. Collins
| Decision Date | 12 March 1991 |
| Docket Number | No. 88-2276,88-2276 |
| Citation | 928 F.2d 126 |
| Parties | Frank Lee MIKESKA, James Logan Diez, Antonio Crecelius and Walter D. Williams, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. James A. COLLINS, Director, Texas Dept. of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division, et al., Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Frank Lee Mikeska, Lovelady, Tex., pro se.
James Logan Diez, San Angelo, Tex., pro se.
Walter D. Williams, Lovelady, Tex., pro se.
Lawrence Wells, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jim Mattox, Atty. Gen., and Adrian Young, Austin, Tex., for defendants-appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas; Robert M. Parker, Judge.
Before POLITZ, DAVIS, and DUHE, Circuit Judges.
The court sua sponte grants rehearing, withdraws its earlier opinion reported at 900 F.2d 833 (5th Cir.1990), and substitutes the following.
The initial paragraph of the prior opinion and the two factual paragraphs under the subtitle "Background," 900 F.2d at 834, are reinstated.
As a threshold consideration we must determine whether appellate jurisdiction exists for this appeal. As a court of limited jurisdiction we are bound to address that inquiry, on the court's own motion if necessary. Thompson v. Betts, 754 F.2d 1243 (5th Cir.1985). Our specific question is whether the notice of appeal brings before this court the claims of the three complainants who were named but who did not sign that notice. We conclude that the appeals of Mikeska, Crecelius, and Williams were not properly put before the court by a notice signed only by Diez, who is not a lawyer and, obviously, not a member of the bar of this court. Smith v. White, 857 F.2d 1042 (5th Cir.1988); Theriault v. Silber, 579 F.2d 302 (5th Cir.1978), cert. denied, 440 U.S. 917, 99 S.Ct. 1236, 59 L.Ed.2d 468 (1979). Accordingly, those appeals should be and are dismissed.
We find no validity to any claim raised by Diez and affirm the judgment of the district court as relates to his claims, doing so for the reasons assigned in our earlier opinion, which to that limited extent is also reinstated. 900 F.2d at 836-37.
Our earlier majority opinion was motivated by a desire to fashion a simple, expedient, and meaningful method to handle situations presented by pro se notices of appeal signed by less than all of the named pro se appellants. We again address that problem and direct a solution for prospective application. Hereafter, upon receipt of a timely filed multi-party pro se notice of appeal that fails to bear what purports to be the signature of one or more of the persons listed as appellants, the clerk of this court shall, pursuant to the authority of Fed.R.App.P. 4(a)(3), notify the non-signing appellant[s] of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sillah v. Davis
...may appear pro se on his own behalf, `[h]e has no authority to appear as an attorney for others than himself.'"); Mikeska v. Collins, 928 F.2d 126 (5th Cir. 1991); Bonacci v. Kindt, 868 F.2d 1442, 1443 (5th The existence of class allegations does not alter that conclusion, because a pro se ......
-
Luong v. Hatt, 5:97-CV-165-BA.
...28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(3). LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY. 1. An appeal as to three of the appellants was dismissed, Mikeska v. Collins, 928 F.2d 126 (5th Cir.1991). That new opinion does not affect nor alter the rule of law for which Mikeska v. Collins, is cited at 900 F.2d at are hereby ......
-
Callaway v. Smith County
...to interfere except in extreme circumstances. Mikeska v. Collins, 900 F.2d 833, 836 (5th Cir.1990), modified on rehearing 928 F.2d 126 (5th Cir.1991). Indeed, the general rule is that inmates do not have a protected liberty interest in their custodial classification. Wilson v. Budney, 976 F......
-
Powers v. United States Dep't of Labor
...may appear pro se on his own behalf, '[h]e has no authority to appear as an attorney for others than himself.'"); Mikeska v. Collins, 928 F.2d 126 (5th Cir. 1991); Bonacci v. Kindt,868 F.2d 1442, 1443 (5th Cir. 1989). Accordingly, Powers is the only Plaintiff in this action. The next matter......
-
Recent Legal Developments
...state action that invades the sphere of the intellect and spirit. University ofPittsburgh Law Review,79, 647–676.Mikeska v. Collins, 928 F.2d 126 (5th Cir. 1991).Munson v. Gaetz, 673 F.3d 630 (7th Cir. 2012).Mushlin, M. (2009). Rights of prisoners (4th ed.). St. Paul, MN: West.O’Hear, M. M.......